[rpd] clarification on pending ratifications

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Noah,

 

In a generic way:

 
The PDP interpretation of when consensus has been reached is in the 3.4.3 (last call). That declaration of consensus is the one done by the co-chairs, not the PDWG.
 
If anyone (the PDWG) believes there is no consensus at that stage, the way is not cancelling the “approval” (3.4.4), but instead using the conflict resolution (3.5).
 

Now, if we talk about the inter-RIR proposal, as said before, I fully agree with you that the declaration of consensus was anomalous in many senses, and that’s why we have the appeals that need to be resolved. Just facts.

 

However, if we talk about the other proposal (board prerogatives), there was no objection within the last-call, there was no appeal. Again, just facts.

 

I know very well the definition of consensus, but you need to read and “execute” the PDP in the order as written, otherwise has no sense. So “determination of rough consensus – 3.4.2”, then last-call (3.4.3) and finally approval (3.4.4). The chairs are responsible (bot the PDWG) to determine if the consensus is sustained in 3.4.3. If they fail, we have to appeal.

 

And yes I full agree that the communication of the chairs to the board, should be done copy to the PDWG, but it doesn’t change the fact that the consensus is determined by co-chairs, otherwise, we don’t need them.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 8/4/21 14:40, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribió:

 

Hi JORDI,

 

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:52 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

 

Where I completely disagree with you is in the need for B.

 

I actually completely agree with Eddy on point B and I will explain why using your own submission below... 

 

Following the PDP section 3.4.4 (approval):

“The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the AFRINIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group. 

 

Please read the above section again and you will understand why I have been telling you over and over again that both policies did not reach consensus.

 

The section clearly states that the WG chairs shall recommend a draft policy to the board for approval ..... only and I mean only, if the said proposal has the "consensus of the Policy Development Working Group" 

 

Now we all know what happened in the discussions, where the former co-chairs went back and forth with rough consensus, consensus, no consensus and them imposing some deadline for the WG to comment before they came again with their declaration of consensus. This is not how consensus is determined.

 

That is why section 3.4.4 of the CPM has the line that reads "if it has the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group". 

 

Consensus is not the majority screaming I support I support and the co-chairs also declaring, hey look, the majority are screaming I support I support.... hey they are saying they need the policy so badly for AFRICA blah blah blah ....so this is a done deal...we have obtained consensus, hurray, hurray, hurray.... board please ratify now fast fast.....

 

RFC 7282  section 6 summarizes that  "One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus".... until all objections have been addressed as explained in RFC 7282 section 3 and both the Resource Transfer Proposal and Board Prerogatives Proposal... still have unresolved concerns which is why a number of WG participants launched an appeals to the Appeal Committee. Infact the Recall Committee also in their report to the WG determined that the co-chairs failed after all "Consensus is the path, not the destination". RFC 7282 section 5

 

 

The recommendation shall include a report of the discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the Last Call.

 

That report needs to be shared with the PDWG because it's a summary document of WG deliberation and it is the PDWG that determines Consensus not the Co-chairs whose role is simply to declare the same only and only when there are no valid objections and all concerns have been addressed.

 

The draft policy shall be ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors.”

 

Only if it has the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group.

 

Noah



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210408/0bb81cb8/attachment.html>